Guantanamo Bay ? your views ?

Below is a link to a story I read about Guantanamo Bay. At the bottom of the articles are comments by readers. Wow, they are sure slanted against the detainees. Not that anyone is in favor of them but you have to question the term: enemy combatants...... How convenient to have basically prisoners of war being held thousands of miles from where they were captured with no due process. I'm not sure what I believe or expect. I know that I typically hate enemy's of the USA. I heard that the US govt. spent many millions of dollars building a prison in Illinois that was supposed to hold the Guantanamo detainees. Your thought, ideas, opinions ??????

the below is from Wikipedia on the Illinois prison built (referenced above)

The building of the prison was controversial; early plans suggested using the site of the former Savanna Army Depot, several miles north of Thomson. One of the main reasons the prison was controversial was concern[who?] that the prison would have a negative impact on the environment, especially being so close to the Mississippi River.[6]
Thomson Correctional Center was built between May 1999 and November 2001. Its completion cost $140 million, but the state omitted opening costs from the 2002 budget, and Governor George H. Ryan called for a delay to the opening to save $50 million per year in operating costs.[7] By 2009, the total cost to the state of Illinois exceeded $170 million.[8] The minimum security unit has an annual budget of $7 million.[9] State budget constraints as well as labor union opposition to closing other state prisons prevented the maximum-security prison from opening.[9]
In 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich proposed to close the state prison in Pontiac, Illinois and to open the Thomson maximum-security unit instead. However, Blagojevich was subsequently arrested on December 9, 2008, and removed from office. His replacement, Governor Pat Quinn cancelled plans to close the Pontiac prison in March 2009, leaving Thomson unused.[9]
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin’s office announced on October 2, 2012 that the Obama administration and Federal Bureau of Prisons is buying the Thomson Correctional Center from the Illinois for $165 million.[10][11][12] An administration official said the deal was to address overcrowding issues, and Thomson would not be used to house any Guantanamo detainees, which the official noted was prohibited by law. “The entire facility will house only [Bureau of Prison] inmates (up to 2,800) and be operated solely by BOP. Specifically, it will be used for administrative maximum security inmates and others who have proven difficult to manage in high-security institutions,” said the official, who asked not to be named.[13] This statement was echoed in letter from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. "I have committed that no Guantanamo detainees will be transferred to Thomson. As you know, any such transfer would violate express legal statutory prohibitions," Holder said in a letter to Representative Frank Wolf, who fought the proposal.[14] Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said the move would create 1,000 jobs in the area of Thomson.[14] Federal officials have said that building a new prison instead of buying Thomson would cost about $400 million and take years.[11] State officials estimated that annual operation of the facility would generate more than $122 million in operating expenditures, including salaries and $61 million in local business sales.[11]
[edit] Transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees
Wikinews has related news: Guantanamo inmates to be transferred to Illinois

On December 15, 2009, President Barack Obama, via a Presidential memorandum, formally ordered the departments of Justice and Defense to arrange Federal ownership of the prison, and prepare for transfer there of both Federal prisoners and Guantanamo detainees.[15] According to previous press reports, the acquisition plan contemplated housing there up to 100 inmates from the camp, in addition to other federal prisoners.[16] The Federal Bureau of Prisons will erect a more secure perimeter fence, so its perimeter security exceeds supermax standards.[17] The portion of the Thomson prison that will be used to house Guantanamo detainees will be operated by the Department of Defense, while the rest of the prison will be operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[18][19][20] CNN stated that before the decision was announced, many in the town welcomed the idea of Guantanamo prisoner housing in their town as the hopes will revitalize the town's economy and bring jobs.[9][16] However, funding for detainee transfers was blocked and the Obama Administration has no more plans to transfer Guantanamo detainees to Thompson.[14]

Yeah, Wow, what a lot of stuff about that!! I'm too lazy to read it all. The only thing I can say this whole thing is absurd. After WWII we had the Nurnberg trials that was it. Over and done with. Dragging all this stuff on forever with huge cost to the tax payer who actually gets nothing back for it is nuts. Either someone committed a crime then get it over with as fast as you can. Up to the next war forget these ones we just fought.
In this respect and a lot other things makes the US kind of a "shake my wise head" country.

Your about the sheer volume of quotes and stories and referances making ones head spin, but I guess one of my questions is somewhat answered and that would be the question of why the DOJ wants some of the terrorists tried in Federal courts rather than a Military Tribunial.

If criminal, tried in civilian court. If the war on terror is a real war then they are POW's. But they are not state sanctioned fighters thus they are criminal. Civilian courts it is. And that Cuban holding tank is a black mark on our country that harkens to a time we thought we could try them in kangaroo courts and kill them. Nope, we are better than that.

If these fighters are abetted and assisted by various other countries are they not then considered sanctioned by foreign states and should be tried as enemy combants and since one mans terrorists is another's freedom fighter and they both employ the same type of tactics although on different types of targets, what are they? I believe that those fighters that target and kill exclusivey civilations as targets are terrorists , if they target military installations ,equipment or engage military troops ,they then should be considered fighters and get POW status ,there is no reason to try a POW, but all guerilla fighters who employ terrorism as a weapon should be tried in a military tribunial.

nice response johnny, so let me add: Those fighters (any individual) that target and kill exclusivey civilations as targets are terrorists is correct. I believe these persons should be EXCLUDED from military trials, since their act(s) was not against our military. Crimes against non-military persons and/or non-military property should be subject to the civil courts of the offended country only. If not, then a grocery store robber could be subjected to these military tribunals as well. Let the military complex deal with its own offenders and crimes, while at the same time letting the state/federal courts handle their own violations. Doesn't this just seem logical?

But to play the Devil's advocate, the defination of an armed force is an Army, so considering those types of fighters are fighting a particular form of government that they want to change or overthrow and to counter those attacks the engaged country deploys it's own military to combat those forces, so now we have an armed conflict, but if one side decides to employ a tactic that includes attacks on civilian based targets to deflect some the others forces from the field of battle so that the playing field is more level or to their advantage,are they still not military men, only difference being the targeting principal?

Right you are again johnny, IF the attackers are military and employing their efforts, whether sanctioned by their country or not, then the military courts should handle these offenders. All I am saying is that if the attackers are NOT military, and even if their attacks on civilians are during an armed conflict, their actions should be tried and punished,if found guilty, in a civilian court.

Lone wolf terrorists are different matter, are they really a believer in their cause or just someone looking to vent his issues by using a political cause to justify his murderous rampage. That decision is way beyond my pay grade, however I think that at any rate , a mad dog should be put down, and then after the fact ,discuss his or hers motives or what insanity drove them.

johnnycee Wrote: If these fighters are abetted and assisted by various other countries are they not then considered sanctioned by foreign states and should be tried as enemy combants and since one mans terrorists is another's freedom fighter and they both employ the same type of tactics although on different types of targets, what are they? I believe that those fighters that target and kill exclusivey civilations as targets are terrorists , if they target military installations ,equipment or engage military troops ,they then should be considered fighters and get POW status ,there is no reason to try a POW, but all guerilla fighters who employ terrorism as a weapon should be tried in a military tribunial.

Bin Ladens boys are from mostly Saudi lands, the Taliban is from both Pakistan and Afganistan. The Pashtan aren't fighting a war of independence as Pakistani Intelligence gave them Afganistan. All Al Qaida are terrorists. The term Enemy Combants is vague for a reason. Bush needed that to set up the Cuban base and his plans for the detainees got shot down by the SCOTUS. So here we are, still looking for the final solution but having no clue.

Since the taliban are in reality a political, quasi-religious bunch of terrorists, for want of better word (for hire) being supported by other regimes that need a forcefull element to enforce their own views, this is what the makes the taliban a military force both in armament and political views and they should be considered Military because they seek to overthrow governments and impose their own Doctrine, lone wolfs on the other hand are not supported by other governments and seek their own personal agendas, their actions should be considered criminal.

Read my mail: you guys fall also for the "lawyer fest" as I said in another "thread" keep it complicated and study it to bits, no body neither these prisoners are getting any wiser about their case; it is being milked to death. Typical, only the lawyers and politicians make money of it and keep it going.

TJ Wrote: Below is a link to a story I read about Guantanamo Bay. At the bottom of the articles are comments by readers. Wow, they are sure slanted against the detainees. Not that anyone is in favor of them but you have to question the term: enemy combatants...... How convenient to have basically prisoners of war being held thousands of miles from where they were captured with no due process. I'm not sure what I believe or expect. I know that I typically hate enemy's of the USA. I heard that the US govt. spent many millions of dollars building a prison in Illinois that was supposed to hold the Guantanamo detainees. Your thought, ideas, opinions ??????

Tony, Thoughts ? I served time in the USN in that hell hole many years ago for the old country.... the USA. It is Devil's Island without the malaria or vegetation. It would be interesting to know the suicide rate among both guards and prisoners... We all hate peope who are out to destroy us, just as the enemy hates us when we're doing it to them. The Muslim culture is strange and a little whacky to me. Still, a group of Arabs didn't suddenly wake up one morning and say =
Gee, I don't like the way those Americans comb their hair.Let's drop some bombs on them - After the long, terrible ordeal we've experience over these past years I have yet to hear an America ....in the newspapers, media, or on the net....ask, What exactly are we doing to rile them up ? I've heard it from people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. But, of course, people like that are not allowed to get any where near the popular media.
Another aspect of this whole Obamanation is that in the old country ( the USA ) the idea of holding a person prisioner for ten years or more without ever determining if he is guilty of anything....would strike most Americans as horrific? But then we aren't Americans anymore are we ?
Thanks for raising an interesting and important topic.